Iain. I have a quick question about emergence. (I was too quick with
the delete key and have lost the first post from jb -- sorry, jb.) But,
with the problems and qualifications you bring up, the word seems to work
pretty well.
You say "Emergence is not a bad translation for being as phusis," but
isn't phusis already being as a being (or beings), .i.e., to be *as*
phusis isn't it already necessary for a being to be what it is in its
ownmost? Similarly, isn't the emergence or advance into intelligibility
already (always already) a being as something? The value of the word to
me seems to be that it forces an emphasis on one of H's central problems:
that beings are intelligible as bearers of properties, and that this mode
of being is the one in which the being as what it is can emerge as itself
in its ownmost.
I'm trying to avoid the phenomenological line "emerge to Dasein" or
"emerge to intelligence," because I think such a way of framing the
question would already take an edge off H's way of asking the question.
But I don't think "emergence" has to subordinate the idea of "ownmost" to
a phenomenological exchange -- things emerge as what they are, their
emergence catches up the movement into (their appropriation) of their own
(propriate) mode of being. The other advantage of emergence, understood
in terms of the issues you rightly raise, is that it would carry the
force of aletheia's structure, namely that discoveredness or unveiling is
always the disclosure of some-thing.
This is a pretty rough run-through, but I hope it makes some kind of
sense. Anyway, "emergence" is a term that has a lot of interesting
possibilities, and one that carries a nuance that the others (propriate,
empropriation, endowment, etc.) can't advance by themselves.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------
the delete key and have lost the first post from jb -- sorry, jb.) But,
with the problems and qualifications you bring up, the word seems to work
pretty well.
You say "Emergence is not a bad translation for being as phusis," but
isn't phusis already being as a being (or beings), .i.e., to be *as*
phusis isn't it already necessary for a being to be what it is in its
ownmost? Similarly, isn't the emergence or advance into intelligibility
already (always already) a being as something? The value of the word to
me seems to be that it forces an emphasis on one of H's central problems:
that beings are intelligible as bearers of properties, and that this mode
of being is the one in which the being as what it is can emerge as itself
in its ownmost.
I'm trying to avoid the phenomenological line "emerge to Dasein" or
"emerge to intelligence," because I think such a way of framing the
question would already take an edge off H's way of asking the question.
But I don't think "emergence" has to subordinate the idea of "ownmost" to
a phenomenological exchange -- things emerge as what they are, their
emergence catches up the movement into (their appropriation) of their own
(propriate) mode of being. The other advantage of emergence, understood
in terms of the issues you rightly raise, is that it would carry the
force of aletheia's structure, namely that discoveredness or unveiling is
always the disclosure of some-thing.
This is a pretty rough run-through, but I hope it makes some kind of
sense. Anyway, "emergence" is a term that has a lot of interesting
possibilities, and one that carries a nuance that the others (propriate,
empropriation, endowment, etc.) can't advance by themselves.
Michael Harrawood
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
------------------